2012-Ģ��ƵAT-196

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s application was submitted to Ģ��ƵDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s claims that the Ģ��ƵDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a question of law by deducing that this reply triggered the time limit were unsubstantiated. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in a question of fact or of law in rejecting the application as not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to retroactively suspend her pension. Ģ��ƵDT rejected her application on the grounds that it was filed late and, therefore, not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

When a person, whose right of access to the Ģ��Ƶ administration of justice system is doubtful, nevertheless chooses to submit a request for management evaluation and, subsequently, an appeal to the Ģ��ƵDT, that person must follow the logic of the procedure: if the Management Evaluation Unit replies that the request is not receivable, that reply, whatever its legal basis, constitutes a management evaluation, the date of receipt of which triggers the 90-day response period established in Article 8. 1 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Odio-Benito

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement